( 1 ) BOTH these Revisions are directed against the interim orders of the trial Court passed, rejecting the petitioners'-Defendants' I. A. No. II under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and I. A. III under Order 18, Rule 17, r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in O. S. No. 38/1993 pending ex parte on its file.

( 2 ) ). The said O. S. No. 38/1993 has been instituted by the respondents-plaintiffs against petitioners-defendants for recovery of certain amount of money. It is not in dispute that on service of Court summons, petitioners had put in their appearance through their learned counsel in the suit proceeding and had failed to file their written statement within the time granted by the trial Court and also that the learned counsel appearing for them did not choose to cross-examine the plaintiff who was examined as PW-1 at the trial. Therefore, when the case was, on conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, set down for pronouncement of judgment, the petitioners-defendants came forward with the aforesaid applications, viz. I. A. Nos. II and III, praying that they may be permitted to file the written statement and to recall PW-1 for their cross-examination.

( 3 ) ). Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Sujatha v. Indian Bank, reported in ILR 1996 Kant 553, as also on the decision of the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, reported in AIR 1964 SC 993, which was followed in the case of Sujatha, the trial Court has passed the impugned order, rejecting the said application on the ground that the defendant would not be entitled to reopen a case at the stage when it was posted for judgment.

( 4 ) ). The learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ram Bhat inviting attention to the relevant amended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure contained in sub-rule (4) of Order XVIII as also under Order IX, Rule 6, C. P. C. maintained that the decisions relied on by the trial Court will have no application in view of the corresponding Amendments effected in the said provisions which empowers the trial Court to permit a party to the proceeding to lead any additional material evidence at any stage of the proceeding. The learned counsel for respondents-plaintiffs, on the other hand, per contra argued in support of the impugned order.

( 5 ) ). On consideration of rival contentions put forward by both sides, I find sufficient legal force and weight in the contention of Mr. Ram Bhat.

( 6 ) ). First, let me advert to the material provisions in Order IX, Rule 6 and Order XVIII, Rule 2 of C. P. C. The relevant portion of the provision under Order IX, Rule 6 (1) (a) reads :"6. Procedure when only plaintiff appears:- (1) Where the plaintiff appears and the defendant does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, then- (a) When summons duly served - if it is proved that the summons was duly served, the Court may make an order that the suit be heard ex parte; (b) and (c ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "rule 2 of Order XVIII deals with production of evidence at the trial by the parties. Its material portion is as extracted below:-"2. Statement and Production of evidence - (1) On the day fixed for the hearing of the suit or any other day to which the hearing is adjourned, the party having the right to begin shall state his case and produce his evidence in support of the issues which he is bound to prove. (2) The other party shall then state his case and produce his evidence (if any) and may then address the Court generally on the whole case. (3 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Rule, the Court may, for reasons to be recorded, direct or permit any party to examine any witness at any stage. "

( 7 ) ). It is to be noted that the above-quoted provision under Order IX, Rule 6 (1) (a) has been substituted by amending Act 104 of 1976 with effect from 1-2-1977 in place of the old provision which read :"6 (1) (A) When summ